BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE May 27, 2004 On behalf of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, I write to comment on the Draft Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. I have reviewed documents provided by the DOE/NNSA and other data in preparation of these remarks. These are our most significant findings:
We have the following recommendations with regard to the draft LLNL SW-EIS.
The Nuclear Posture Review is used to rationalize the proposed actions at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. We submit that the NPR cannot rightly be used to justify additional negative impacts on the environment and public health because its findings are contrary to international law and treaty agreements ratified by Congress and signed by the President of the United States and are, therefore, constitutional requirements.
Specifically, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligates all nations party to the agreement to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles, to halt nuclear weapons production, and to end the arms race. It certainly prohibits design, engineering, testing, and manufacturing capabilities. Overview Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is located on an 821-acre site three miles from downtown Livermore, California. Since 1952 LLNL has been operated by the University of California to design nuclear weapons. LLNL originated four weapons systems: the W87 and W62 intercontinental ballistic missile warheads, the B83 bomb, and the W84 cruise missile. LLNL is the site of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) slated to begin operation in 2008. The NIF would do nuclear weapons experiments including fusion ignition, high energy density, and radiation effects. Alternatives analyzed in this LLNL SW/SPEIS include the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action, and the Reduced Operation Alternative. We support elements of the Reduced Operation Alternative which actually reduce damage to the natural environment and public health. We do not support the new and expanded activities which are also proposed by the Reduced Operation Alternative. Public Health and Worker Safety Would Not Be Protected The DOE/NNSA failed to address the historical impacts of radioactive contamination of the atmosphere caused by activities at LLNL. Furthermore, the DOE/NNSA failed to properly take into account information provided in scoping documents. The draft EIS states:
The assumptions in the draft EIS belie the facts. A Clark University study of negative health impacts in the Livermore area, entitled A Critical Review of an ATSDR Public Health Assessment for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, yielded a stunningly different picture. Two large accidental releases of radioactive gas and water vapor occurred at LLNL which emitted a total of approximately 650,000 curies into the atmosphere. Human error and equipment failures at LLNL were cited as the causes for these accidents. At the time of the first accident, LLNL managers assumed that the plume of radioactive gas would not touch the ground and therefore recorded no quantitative data on the release. A simple gaussian atmospheric dispersion model of the accident performed by engineers at the time could have revealed that this assumption was wrong. But the most damning critique is reserved for the recent health assessment by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) which is charged with assessing health impacts. The ATSDRs draft Public Health Assessment of LLNL shares with DOE/NNSA a similar conclusion: that the radioactive contamination which occurred is not a public health concern. However, as the authors of the Clark University review have shown, ATSDRs assessment is woefully inaccurate.
ATSDR ignored models which predicted higher levels of radioactive dose to the public. Independent estimates show three to four times higher levels of exposure 1. The Agency used the widely discredited threshold hypothesis to estimate zero radiation impacts. Scientific consensus supports the linear model which holds that very low doses of radiation do have an impact. The Clark review concludes:
The DOE/NNSA in publishing their draft EIS appears to follow in the footsteps of the ATSDRs discredited health impact assessment. The draft EIS states that radioactive pollutants released to the atmosphere would be low under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action, and the Reduced Operation Alternative. But the admitted impacts on public health should be considered. The draft EIS states:
The Clark University independent assessment estimates that 80% of the health impacts from LLNL were accidental; the remaining 20% would therefore be from routine releases. Russ and Goble show that, as a result of the earlier accident, the dose to the maximally expose adult was 82 millirem, and the estimate for a maximally exposed 5-yr old was 134 mrem. DOE/NNSA must go back to the drawing board and do a credible assessment of health impacts on the workers and the general public caused by routine and accidental radiation exposure caused by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Specific Comments on the Draft Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement S.5.1 No Action Alternative The term No Action Alternative is deceptive because its implementation would in fact expand operations at LLNL and add 550 plant personnel. This alternative includes the following additional activities: National Ignition Facility, BioSafety Level 3 Facility, Terascale Simulation Facility, Superblock Stockpile Stewardship Program Operations, Container Security Testing, security upgrades, decontamination and decommissioning of some facilities, and the packaging and shipping of over 1,000 drums of radioactive transuranic waste to New Mexicos WIPP. The DOE/NNSA is expecting approval of these additional activities to fulfill its obligations under the NEPA but has categorically excluded several from review: The Container Security Testing Facility, Central Cafeteria Replacement, International Security Research Facility, and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Mobile Vendor. Others have been issued a FONSI: Terascale Simulation Facility, BSL-3 Facility, and security upgrades. The draft EIS includes the following exemption:
These facilities and operations at LLNL must not be excluded from further NEPA review and all FONSIs should be reviewed under this draft EIS. S.5.2 Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, DOE/NNSA is planning experiments using plutonium, other fissile materials, and lithium hydride for nuclear weapons effects tests at the National Ignition Facility as outlined in A.R. doc VII.A-4; therefore, DOE must analyze the reasonably foreseeable environmental impact of such experiments as required under Memorandum Opinion and Order, August 1998 [NRDC v. Peņa, Civ. No. 97-936(SS) (D.D.C.)] and 10 C.F.R.1021.314.
In order to conduct such experiments, LLNL would have to store plutonium on site. In 1992 the DOE estimated 200 kilograms would suffice; in 1999 the capacity was raised to 700 kilograms. Now DOE proposes to increase the storage capacity to 1,500 kilograms. In little more than a decade LLNL has increased its need for plutonium by 650%, an annual growth rate of 108 kg. 2 (S.5.2.2, p. 14) This is a disturbing trend which cannot be justified. Security is touched on briefly. However, the proposed actions security measures are predicated on documents unavailable to the affected public.
The Proposed Action would triple the amount of plutonium allowed to be used in experimental processes. If permitted, the risk of latent cancer fatalities during an accident would also increase to 288% of the present risk to plant workers and the general public. 2 The draft EIS states:
The draft document prepared by DOE/NNSA specifies that this cancer increase is caused by the fissile materials being used in the lab at any given time, not by the total locked in storage. There is no justification offered for thus increasing the real risks of radiation exposure. Indeed, there cannot be. The DOE/NNSA plans an Advanced Materials Program to develop Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope Separation (AVLIS) technology. If AVLIS is successful, the Integrated Technology Project would then begin to produce plutonium and enriched uranium, expected to start in 2008. The stated purpose of this effort is for the production of new plutonium weapons. As stated above, the production of new atomic weapons, termed vertical proliferation, is prohibited by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Waste Transport Risks to the general public are increased by the Proposed Action. The draft EIS states:
TRUPACT containers testing is inadequate. The tests utilized computer modeling in lieu of actual crash testing. The real world implications for terrorist attacks and accidents have never been properly assessed; therefore, the DOE/NNSA must include a credible transport impact assessment in its proposed actions which increase actinide release damages to human health in the EIS. S.5.3 Reduced Operation Alternative According to the LLNL SW/SPEIS, the Reduced Operation Alternative would bring a reduction in program and support activities 30% below the proposed No Action Alternative 2 (S-20). Again DOE/NNSA terminology is misleading because the so-called No Action Alternative would actually increase operations at LLNL. The so-called Reduced Operation Alternative would decrease the increase, resulting in no overall reductions in operations. By engaging in such double-speak, DOE/NNSA again undermines its own credibility. The question we must ask is: What does the National Nuclear Security Agency have to hide? The Reduced Operation Alternative would decrease but not discontinue operations at the National Ignition Facility. However, the reduction in NIF experiments by approximately one-third outlined in this alternative would reduce risks of tritium releases which have plagued LLNL.
The Reduced Operation Alternative would lessen the impacts from plutonium weapons manufacturing at LLNL. Since the United States is awash in plutonium weapons materials leftover from the Cold War, there can be no justification for needless environmental impacts and indeed DOE/NNSA offers none. They do corroborate the reduced negative impact on worker health under this alternative in the draft EIS.
The Reduced Operation Alternative would result in a 50% decrease in plutonium pit surveillance activities and 50% fewer subcritical assemblies which would further reduce environmental impacts including transuranic waste generation and worker dose.2 Also, under this alternative energy requirements for the Terascale Simulation Facility would be reduced from 25 megawatts to 15.3 megawatts, a 39% reduction in power needs.2 This has the potential to save 85,000 megawatt-hours per year in electric energy-strapped California. DOE/NNSA fails to adequately address additional electric power needs of its Proposed Action in the draft EIS. The Reduced Operation Alternative would result in smaller routine releases of radioactive tritium to the atmosphere both at the Livermore lab and at the more remote Site 300. The trade-offs posed in the draft EIS would save 50 curies of radionuclide releases to the environment and would not compromise national security.
The Reduced Operation Alternative would discontinue dangerous projects including the Advanced Materials Program and the AVLIS, meaning that laser separation of plutonium and other radioactive isotopes would not take place. Also, the Plutonium Facility Engineering Demonstration System would be mothballed. Ending these experiments would have immediate beneficial effects; as stated in the LLNL SW/SPEIS: These changes would reduce specific environmental impacts such as transuranic waste generation and worker dose. (S.5.3.1) As further acknowledged in the EIS, LLNL would not reduce safety and security at the site in any case. Whereas DOE/NNSA has not sufficiently demonstrated a need for increased environmental impacts and public health risks, the Reduced Operation Alternative is the only option under NEPA. Thank you for the opportunity to present these comments. I hereby request to by apprised of any interim or final agency decisions with regards to this action. Respectfully, Louis A. Zeller Footnotes 1. A Critical Review of an ATSDR Public Health Assessment for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Perspectives on Nuclear Weapons and Community Health, Russ and Goble, February 2004 2. Draft Site-wide
Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Operation of
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Supplemental
Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement, February 2004
(DOE/EIS-0348 and DOE/EIS-0236-S3)
|